new thread
Many centuries ago only slaves had short hair and in many cases their heads were shaved while free men sported longer locks.
men of royalty often had very long and stylish hair.
it is only within the last century or so that this concept of very short haircuts became accepted.
the obsession of civilian men wanting to pay for military haircuts makes absolutely no sense in a free society.
In many cases the hair is shaven almost or completely down to the scalp. The desire of a man who is NOT in the military walking into a barber shop requesting a Marine Corps "high 'n' tight" makes absolutely no sense!
so my question is:
Is this a sign that men wanting these extremely short haircuts would really prefer to be enslaved instead of free?
No. Rather it's a sign that they can't be bothered with hair.
They want to just hop in the shower and be done with it.
I would agree with Long Hair in Albany. Until 2013 I cut my hair very short, and I just didn't bother with it. It was washed during my shower and was dry in minutes.
My decision to grow my hair long came from an old dream from when I was about 12, and my "heroes" were long-haired men in films set in the 18th century. Gentlemen had long hair then, and I just don't care about fashions of our own time. It needs to be looked after, and it takes a long time to dry when it is washed - but it is a part of me.
Personally, when I was short-haired, I didn't have the conscious idea of giving up my citizen's freedom. But, something was missing in my life from the rebellious period of my life in the early 1970's.
Still growing and my longest hairs have reached mid-back.
Greetings to all,
Anthony
I think its about control. There is a reason why N. Korea doesn't let men grow their hair out. Not that long hair will give you freedom, rather it is a symbol. In democratic countries we have no such laws, but the propaganda machine is strong.
Just a thought. I don't claim to know what it means, but the absolute insistence on short hair by the establishment is pretty strange.
yes, even Hollywood is doing this when they release a film about King Arthur, but he is portrayed with very short hair. this is historically inaccurate and I just question WHY they are doing this now.
I read an article on the internet (you can Google "bald men more intelligent and masculine") that women were finding bald men more "intelligent and masculine", especially when they shave off their remaining hair (usually at the back), Bruce Willis or Telly Savalas style. I don't know if this is a real fashion trend or a passing fad.
In any case, I don't care about fashion and see the symbolism of long hair. Short hair started in the mid 19th century, but became more standard from World War I. The Romans generally had short hair (statues and other representations). Perhaps there is a collusion between "Romanticism' and long hair and "Classicism" with short hair in history.
Mine keeps growing and I don't cut it...
i would mention that the movie is on track to bomb big time.
They like to make 85% of the gross opening weekend, the movie has fallen far short of that.
Also it should be noted his hair style is big in Europe now, so that may be why they are going with it.
So maybe the box office indicates viewers feeling about the legend with short hair.
What does it mean? It means the movie is bombing big time.
That may be true, but long hair was definitely not the norm or in style back in the 1930s, yet here is Errol Flynn playing Robin Hood from a 1930s movie with long hair
The way Flynn's hair looks in the film would've been much more historically accurate for that time period, but the trendy closely cropped style worn by Charlie Hunnam in Legend of the Sword is very inaccurate.
Flynn's hair in real 1930s America and Europe would have been considered extremely "long" by 1930s standards, but probably during the time period(Medieval Europe) which it is set it might have been considered medium length.
Hollywood had it right in the 1930s, but in modern times I question why they are portraying historical characters with such closely cropped "stylish" cuts that were definitely NOT in vogue during those times many centuries ago.
I think it's what you stated about selling a bomb to the masses by presenting a young actor with a trendy short haircut.
I have no intentions on paying to see it.
Now can you imagine Hollywood making a modern movie about some classical era musician such as Frédéric Chopin with a "high 'n' tight"?
as preposterous as it sounds, it would not surprise me if they did something like that.
One of the things to keep in mind is when a studio green lights a movie they will want certain actors attached to it to drive the box office. The studio is also looking to make 85% of the gross the first week a movie opens. So they may have insisted on this
particular actor being attached to the movie and appeal to a certain demographic (males 18-49).
So maybe by having the actor with short hair is the studios attampt to appeal to those who are younger than this old fogie. (I'm 62 years with long hair.) I gave up long ago looking for movies that are intelligent, well written, well acted and aimed at my age group.
(One thing I would mention is at $180 million to make he movie they may have opted to cut the budget in areas like the hairdresser.)
I gave up years ago trying to make sense of Hollywood.
I wonder if the director insisted on him having it that short.
here he is with longer hair
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/7d/cb/a2/7dcba293f8be043ed554a1943f93f611.jpg
What about music?
here is something you might dig!
enjoy!
I decided when they made a film of Bobby Sands with short hair that I would never watch it. I never have and I never will.
He was elected as a Northern Ireland Member of Parliament while on hunger strike, which lead to his death. Everyone knew he had long red hair. I don't know if the link will work, but here he is:-
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1071969.1336066948!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/sands5n-1-web.jpg
Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $154,084 5.7%
+ Foreign: $2,570,390 94.3%
= Worldwide: $2,724,474
I would suggest overlooking his lack of long hair
and see the movie for what it is. It tells a very important
story that goes far beyond the length of his hair.
There are several things to bear in mind with this film:
1. It's an independent film, as such it would not have the
$180 million budget of a major motion picture. The key
word here is "low budget." i.e. no hairdessing staff, no
time for the actor to grow his hair long. Oh and my
understanding it lost a lot of money.
2. The film says a very important message, a message
that goes far beyond how long his hair is.
3. It didn't have a major distributor, my understanding is it
only showed in one theater in the US of A, 68 theaters in
the U.K.
That's all very well, but I think the total lack of any vague resemblance of the main character to the real person is a major reason why it bombed. I think every scene I would have been having to remind myself who he was supposed to be portraying.
Maybe it would work for people outside the UK. Inside? I don't think so.
No it bombed because it as in one theater, probably had no
advertising, had no distributor, and was a low budget film.
So the film makers did what they could on a limited budget.
But the overall message of the film is more important than
how long his hair is.
The message maybe, but the presentation stank. The nearest thing I can say to an American is it would be like having a movie about the life of Lucille Ball and having her played by someone with black hair in a bob.
It's just a style. Some think that long hair is enslaving, and that short hair is free. It's just a matter of personal opinion.
In the way that men should feel free to grow their hair (head/facial/body) as they please... they should also be able to keep that hair as short as they please... even shaved.
I've long thought exactly this. And their desire to make all other men shear their hair only serves to drive that point home. They don't like that other men have taken control of their own bodies. The same rule also applies to our various forms of body modifications as well. It makes those comfortable with blind slavery uncomfortable to see someone else happy without falling in line.
